A YOUNG man left catastrophically injured after a high-spirited dive into a lake where swimming was prohibited was yesterday stripped of the right to six-figure compensation by the House of Lords.

Lord Scott, attributing John Tomlinson's injuries to youthful exuberance, said there was always a risk of accidents arising out of the "joie de vivre of the young" but that was no reason for requiring landowners to impose a "grey and dull safety regime" on everyone.

Mr Tomlinson was just 18 when he dived head first into The Mere in Brereton Heath Park, near Congleton, Cheshire, on a sweltering day in May 1995.

His head struck the bottom and he suffered a broken neck. A young friend saved his life but he was left paralysed for life from the neck downwards.

Allowing the council's appeal, Lord Hoffman said: "The water was perfectly safe for all normal activities. It follows that, in my opinion, there was no risk to Mr Tomlinson due to the state of the premises."

Mr Tomlinson, now 26, had argued the council had not done enough to protect members of the public who routinely ignored notices banning swimming in The Mere.

His case was dismissed by Mr Justice Jack in March 2001.

The judge then ruled the risks of diving into The Mere were "obvious" and the council could be blamed for the tragedy.

But that decision was overturned at the Appeal Court a year later.

At that hearing, by a majority of two judges to one, the court ruled the council had breached its duty towards Mr Tomlinson, despite the fact that warning notices were in place, and Mr Tomlinson's own admission he was a "trespasser" the moment he started swimming in the water.

The Appeal Court ruled Mr Tomlinson had taken an obvious risk in diving into The Mere, "something which he was old enough to realise was stupid", and was himself two-thirds responsible for his own misfortune.

But even with a resulting two-thirds reduction in his entitlement to compensation, as a result of the extent of his injuries, Mr Tomlinson was set to receive an award running into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Now though, following yesterday's decision by the Law Lords he will not receive a penny. Lord Hoffman said the council was under no duty in this case to take any steps to prevent Mr Tomlinson from diving, or to warn him against dangers which were "perfectly obvious".

He said it would be wrong for the council to take extra steps, such as prohibiting any use of the lake, as a result of the fact that people ignore warning signs.

"I think there is an important question of freedom at stake," he said.

He considered it would be unjust that the harmless recreation of responsible parents and children should be prohibited in order to comply with what was thought to be a legal duty to safeguard irresponsible visitors against dangers which were perfectly obvious.

"The fact that such people take no notice of warnings cannot create a duty to take other steps to protect them," he said.

Lord Hoffman called it a "terrible tragedy" to suffer such dreadful injury in consequence of "a relatively minor act of carelessness".

Though agreeing with his fellow Lords that the appeal should be allowed, Lord Scott said that the importance of the obviousness of the risk had been overstated, as Mr Tomlinson was not taking a pre-meditated risk.

He said that, rather than diving in the normal sense, Tomlinson simply ran into the water, then took a plunge when it became too high for him to continue running. The risk would not occur to a young man having fun in such a way, he said.

He continued: "If he had set out to swim across the lake, it might have been relevant to speak of his taking an obvious risk.